Financial conflicts signal that she carries water for Obama's Facebook cartel; Facebook's bribery scheme exposed
(Apr. 13, 2014)—AFI investigators have now analyzed hundreds of financial disclosures from the judicial and executive branches. Sylvia M. Burwell's 2012 financial disclosure is reported below. She declared her net worth at up to $10 million. We discovered this weekend that much of it is held in the same Facebook “dark pools” as a select list of a dozen senior White House officials and Leader v. Facebook judges.
On Friday, President Obama nominated Burwell to replace Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Our investigation uncovered substantial conflicts of interest that may require her to divest of many of her holdings. Public impartiality is her duty.
Burwell holds stock in HealthCare.gov vendors
Burwell holds stock in Booz Allen HAMILTON and Athenahealth, that are both vendors to HealthCare.gov. Obama’s Chief Technology Officer, Todd Y. Park, is the founder of Athenahealth. He also worked for Booz Allen. Todd Park’s brother, Edward Y. Park is their current chief operating officer. Burwell also holds stock in HealthCare.gov no-bid contractors CGI, Inc. and Accenture, as well as Boston Scientific, a collaborator to HealthCare.gov and the Facebook cartel.
These companies have troubling ties to Chinese and Russian social networks, Baidu, Yandex and Mail.ru. These companies are closely tied to Facebook, Goldman Sachs Group and other Facebook financiers incl. T.Rowe Price, Baillie Gifford, Vanguard and Fidelity. Facebook’s cooperation with the NSA makes these byzantine alliances all the more troubling.
Burwell, appears to be a water carrier for the Facebook cartel. If confirmed, she will replace Kathleen Sebelius who oversaw the disastrous HealthCare.gov roll out.
Sebelius issued no-bid contracts to CGI, Inc. cronies of Michelle Obama and U.S. CTO Todd Y. Park. She also allowed Park to give away massive amounts of U.S. healthcare data in a program called “Health Datapalooza.”
The Obama White house appears to be organized like a set of Russian nesting dolls.
The outer doll is the public face, but the nasty stuff is inside. This would explain why no one gets fired in this administration. They’re just following orders.
An exposé of the nested doll strategy among Obama’s Facebook cartel may help readers better interpret Burwell’s holdings. However, if you want to jump to the Burwell analysis below, click here.
Financial disclosures are starting to tell their secrets
When one studies hundreds of reports like we have, the data starts to tell us its secrets.
Our first observation is that the financial reporting mechanism is flawed. It invites fraud and misrepresentation. Essentially, the report gives a blessing to the superficial, somewhat meaningless reporting of only the outer doll. Nonetheless, if one persists in analyzing the underlying data, which is extremely time consuming, the outer doll eventually yields her secrets.
Discover your inner doll
The vast majority of actual stock holdings are nested within mutual funds. Judges, bureaucrats and politicians hide their true holdings inside the funds.
Reporting ownership of the funds, or "the outer dolls," reveals very little
The uninformed thinking among our public officials is that judges and government officials do not have to report their stock holdings within mutual funds for the purpose of recusal. Unscrupulous lawyers support this notion. However, it is dead wrong according to any honest reading of the conflict of interest laws.
Bedrock ethical principle: “Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety”
Conflict of interest laws are founded on the concept of avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. For example, see Canon of Conduct for U.S. Judges. Any interpretation that violates this bedrock principle is wrong, even if it is written by a committee of judges. This circumstance is another proof that the concept of attorney and judge "self-policing" is broken. This lack of ethical discipline contributes to America's growing lawlessness.
A waiver from financial conflicts disclosure for mutual funds is wrongheaded. It would be like me selling you a pair of jeans for $50, but you know there is a $1,000,000 check made out to you in the back pocket. According to the wrongheaded interpretation, you only have to disclose the $50 value of the jeans, while you secretly know the true value is $1,000,050.
Waiving nested investing disclosure is a license to deceive
For public officials intent on rigging the judicial system, this nesting appears to serve two main purposes.
First it provides an “I didn’t know” or “the Judicial Conference says I don’t have to tell you” excuse for not disclosing holdings.
Second, it enables bribery, coercion and insider trading of and by judges.
Promises of a big Facebook IPO were dangled in front of the Leader v. Facebook judges. The bribers could not get away with giving the judges Facebook stock directly, so they nested Facebook holdings inside crony funds, like Fidelity Contrafund.
Fidelity fund manager Robert C. Ketterson was a fellow director of the National Venture Capital Association (NCVA) with James W. Breyer, Accel Partners LLP chairman, Facebook’s then chairman, and Facebook’s largest shareholder and beneficiary. Also serving the NVCA with Breyer and Ketterson were Ann H. Lamont and Anne Rockhold. Lamont is closely tied to Todd Y. Park and Robert P. Kocher, MD. Obamacare and HealthCare.gov architects, and Athenahealth and Castlight Health, founded by Todd Y. Park and technology supplier to HealthCare.gov.
To our knowledge, Burwell has not disclosed any of these conflicts of interest.
Finding Facebook inner dolls
In Leader v. Facebook, substantial amounts of Facebook stock was held by the judges and regulators, sometimes in Doll #2, sometimes in Doll #4 and so on.
For example, a prominent pre-IPO investor in Facebook was Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX).
Federal officials holding Contrafund include Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Circuit Judge Kimberly A. Moore, Federal Election Commission Chairman, John J. Sullivan, Commerce Secretary Rebecca M. Blank, Attorney General Eric H. Holder and Office of Management and Budget Director, Sylvia M. Burwell—now nominated to replace Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Note that the total numbers of holders of Fidelity Contrafund in this administration and the Leader v. Facebook judiciary is limited to a select few insiders. The hand waiving we’ve seen when confronted by these facts is “Well, Contrafund is a popular fund. Everybody’s got some.” No they don’t. We’ve checked.
Out of over 200 financial disclosures we’ve analyzed, only 11 hold Fidelity Contrafund. Those 11 are all senior Obama officials or Leader v. Facebook judges. These people likely had insider information about Contrafund’s Facebook investing plans.
Fidelity has invested $818,228,924 in Facebook
Leader v. Facebook judges did not disclose that they would benefit from decisions favorable to Facebook
Fidelity Contrafund made a large investment in private Facebook before the IPO. As of Jun. 30, 2012, Contrafund had $413,476,551. These investments were brokered by Goldman Sachs in unregulated Wall Street “dark pools.” See 'Fidelity's Danoff Bets on Facebook'' by Miles Weiss, Bloomberg, Jun. 1, 2011. Also see our previous post on dark pools at “Wall Street Manipulation of Judges, Politicians, and Regulators Exposed by Leader v. Facebook Judicial Corruption” by Americans For Innovation, Jan. 7, 2014.
According to Morningstar, a total of 16 Fidelity funds have invested $818,228,924 in Facebook. The numbers are staggering. Any lawyerly excuse for not disclosing the conflict rings hollow.
1. Is nested investing illegal? Generally No. Unless you're hiding insider trading, then its fraud.
2. Should nested stocks be disclosed when the judge’s holdings will be benefited by decisions for one party or the other? Yes.
3. Otherwise, what is the point of disclosing a mutual fund at all? The devil is in the details. The courts are protecting the devil.
The name of the fund becomes meaningless unless one is required to disclose the substance of the holding.
The 217-page judicial advisory opinion contains a dubious Sec. 106 on mutual funds
The Judicial Policy, Sec. 106, Mutual Funds opinion says that the stocks held in a mutual fund are not a financial interest unless you manage it personally. Wouldn't that be everyone since no one forces the judge to purchase a particular mutual fund and its contents? The decision to purchase the fund is enough to force disclosure, even under the dubious Sec. 106 revised definition.
A judge chooses a mutual fund precisely because of the expected performance of returns of the stocks and bonds managed by the fund. Each fund issues a report of its holdings twice a year, so this guideline against disclosure is suspiciously flawed. The holder gets reports of the holdings, therefore a judge holding the fund should always disclose when a litigant comes before him in which he will benefit from favorable rulings. Self-interest induces a judge consciously or subconsciously to provide favorable rulings for his or her own holdings. That is precisely why full disclosures of conflicts of interest, and recusals (if conflicts of interest exist), are absolutely necessary. That is a well settled principal of impartiality and just common sense.
One can imagine the hoops the Judicial Conference jumped through to revise Sec. 106 to its current tortured flip-flopping. Even young children understand these basic concepts of fairness.
The Sec. 106 “safe harbor” opinion is a license for judge bias
The Judicial Conference created a dubious “safe harbor” opinion in Section 106. The language undermines the well-settled language of Canons 2 and 3—to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
In short, the opinion is four pages of ethical swiss cheese, with two shiny brass bookends that state that judges have “no duty to affirmatively monitor the underlying investments.” After this statement, the opinion contains four pages of exceptions. For example, you may have to disclose IRA's, 401(k)’s, brokerage accounts, nested holdings, number of investors, etc.
Sec. 20-2 “even one share of stock” dictates recusal
The mutual fund waiver opinion is contained in the same 217-page advisory opinion that says, “Ownership of even one share of stock by the judge’s spouse would require disqualification.” Section 20-2.
So which is it? Ownership of even one share dictates recusal, or you can do whatever the hell you want if you hide your stock in a mutual fund?
If a family member must disclose even one $50 share, then how is that judges can avoid disclosing tens of millions of dollars just because they are held through a mutual fund. This rule makes absolutely no sense, which makes its origin suspicious. It served somebody’s intent to hide investments, clearly.
Sec. 106 flip-flops between stating the law and excusing judges from it
In the midst of the self-defined exceptions in Sec. 106, the opinion rightly restates the law that a judge must disclose if his or her holdings would be “substantially” affected by the outcome of the ruling. If a judge wants to hide a holding of Facebook stock inside his or her Fidelity or T.Rowe Price mutual fund, then his or her opinion would be that it is not substantial, and thus self-serving. In Sec. 106, the definition of “substantial” is in the eye of the beholder. This rule is vague and duplicitous.
Holdings in the biggest tech IPO in U.S. history doesn't require disclosure? Are you kidding me?
The Facebook IPO was the largest tech IPO in history; valued at roughly $100 billion. Both Fidelity and T. Rowe Price held substantial pre-IPO investments that were reported widely in the press. In fact, T. Rowe held more than 5% of the pre-IPO stock in Facebook. T.Rowe's holding required specific disclosure in the S.E.C. S-1 Registration. If the Fidelity and T.Rowe Price interests held by the Leader v. Facebook judges were not substantially benefited by decisions favorable to Facebook, then this rule's so-called "safe harbor" is moot. Its existence telegraphs an attempt to fabricate excuses for illegal intent.
Even if we were to accept the Judicial Policy Opinion No. 106 as legal, no justification can possibly exist for these judges and regulatory officials to assert that they would not benefit substantially from Leader v. Facebook decisions favorable to Facebook. And yet, the judges were silent, as were the regulators at the Patent Office.
Note: The chief counsel at the U.S. Patent Office advising the judges on the unprecedented third reexamination of Leader’s patent, William J. Stoffel, lists Fidelity and Vanguard as two of his conflicts of interest. The Patent Office is currently stonewalling FOIA requests for background information on these judges and the Director, David J. Kappos. See "Patent Office Removes Critical Leader v. Facebook Disclosure items" by Americans For Innovation, Aug. 15, 2013.
Sylvia M. Burwell is a card-carrying member of the Facebook cartel
Of Sylvia M. Burwell’s 89 holdings, 59 contain Facebook interests. Disturbingly, she holds interests in vendors who benefit greatly from the Obamacare no-bid HealthCare.gov website, including the following:
- Facebook – 9 holdings; HealthCare.gov makes claims that the technology being used is “open source,” even though Leader Technologies proved in federal court on 11 of 11 counts that Facebook infringes their invention.
- Baidu Inc. (China) – 9 holdings; Baidu is tied to Sands Capital, which is tied to Athenahealth; Baidu is a heavily censored Facebook clone in China financed by the same Wall Street and Silicon Valley people who started Facebook; Baidu may be using the same stolen source code from Leader Technologies, Inc.; Leader’s former attorney and Facebook’s current attorney, Fenwick & West LLP, has just placed a junior associate at the top of Baidu’s patenting operation.
- James W. Breyer – Burwell was formerly employed by Wal-Mart; Facebook’s largest shareholder and chairman, James W. Breyer, was a Wal-Mart director until recently; Breyer is implicated in the Wal-Mart Mexican bribery scandal
- Athenahealth – 5 holdings; Athenahealth is a no-bid supplier of social networking technology to HealthCare.gov; founded by Todd Y.Park, the Obama White House’s current CTO , and former chief architect of HealthCare.gov; Park’s brother, Edward Y. Park; Todd Y. Park’s ethics disclosures have gone missing and these conflicts have never been disclosed.
- CGI, Inc. – 3 holdings; CGI is the original no-bid HealthCare.gov contractor run by Michelle Obama’s former Princeton friend.
- Booz Allen Hamilton – 3 holdings; Booz Allen is Todd Y. Park’s former employer and beneficiary of no-bid HealthCare.gov contracts.
- Accenture – 6 holdings; Accenture is the no-bid HealthCare.gov replacement to CGI, Inc.
- Boston Scientific – 5 holdings; Boston Scientific is implicated in the theft of Leader Technologies’ social networking invention.
- Mail.ru/Yandex – 6 holdings; these Russian companies are associated with Russian oligarchs Yuri Milner and vAlisher Usmanov; these men are implicated in the laundering of TARP money into Facebook insider shares which drove Facebook’s pre-IPO valuation to $100 billion.
- Tesla Motors – 5 holdings; Tesla received $456 million in stimulus funds; is closely associated with Elon Musk, a contemporary of Mark Zuckerberg at Harvard, and a close associate to the Facebook cartel; Musk is a notorious contributor to the Obama political campaigns; the recommendation to fund Tesla came from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's former chief security advisor, Mike Sheehy, in collaboration with Facebook's attorney, Cooley Godward LLP, Donald K. Stern; Stern also recommended Leader v. Facebook judges, Leonard P. Stark, and Harry Reid sponsored former chief counsel, Evan J. Wallach.
- 64 holdings in TARP and Facebook IPO beneficiaries, incl. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, BlackRock, T.RowePrice, Vanguard.
- 47 holdings in Mainstream Media, incl. ABC/Disney, NBC/Comcast, CBS Corp, Time Warner and Fox Corp.
- LinkedIn, Groupon, Workday, Dropbox – 17 holdings; these companies are closely associated with Goldman Sachs and James W. Breyer, Accel Partners, Facebook Director, Facebook’s largest shareholder, former Director, Wal-Mart.
- Lawrence “Larry” Summers – lurking in the background is the former director of the National Economic Council; fed tens of billions of TARP bailout funds to his cronies at Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan; Summers mentored Yuri Milner, Digital Sky Technologies, DST, Mail.ru, Yandex, Bank Menatep, World Bank, Soviet privatization Vouchers, which directly connects him to at least six Burwell holdings; Summers also mentored Sheryl S. Sandberg, COO, Facebook, which directly connects him to the myriad of Facebook holdings shown above.
Summers is now believed to have helped engineer the 2008 banking "crisis" in order to use public funds to feed tens of billions in TARP funds to his cronies; billions of dollars of which were then pumped into unregulated Facebook insider stock to boost its pre-IPO valuation. No wonder insiders judges and regulators wanted in. They were promised "once in a lifetime" returns. This has been public bribery on a never-before-seen scale.
Sylvia M. Burwell's 2012 Financial Disclosure
Burwell’s Ethics Pledge & Divestitures
On Mar. 4, 2013, Burwell signed an Ethics Statement. She said:
"I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on my financial interests." —Sylvia M. Burwell, Mar. 4, 2013
At that time, Burwell divested herself of Amazon, ING Global Real Estate, Vanguard VGSNX, Nuveen Real Estate, MetLife and Wal-Mart holdings before taking the OMB job.
Will Burwell divest herself of most of her holdings before taking the HHS job? Most of her holdings have conflicting interests. Since so much of HealthCare.gov involves social networking technologies. Those technologies have been proven to be stolen from Ohio-based innovator, Leader Technologies, Inc.
It should be an interesting Senate hearing.
NOTICE to Congressional Investigators preparing for the Burwell Hearing
AFI researchers have offered their help in providing Burwell research. Just write us at EMAIL and we'll get it right back to you.
* * *